Abstract
In the previous chapter, we have discussed the semantics of rogative predicates—predicates that are compatible only with interrogative complements (e.g., wonder, ask)—and how it bears on the comparison between the proposition-oriented theory and the question-oriented theory. In this section, I will shift our focus back to responsive predicates—predicates that are compatible with declarative and interrogative complements. In particular, within responsive predicates, I will identify three classes of predicates that possess a semantic property that is hard to capture under the proposition-oriented theory. I will then demonstrate that these predicates can be adequately analyzed under the question-oriented theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Essentially the same property is discussed as the distributivity principle by Belnap (1982).
- 2.
The term verbs of relevance is from Karttunen (1977).
- 3.
I assume that the preposition about can be inserted for purely syntactic reasons when care embeds an interrogative complement. Grimshaw (1990, Ch. 3) presents such a view, employing the notion of theta-marking. According to this view, all arguments—whether nominal or clausal—must be theta-marked. However, some heads with argument structures do not have the theta-marking ability. Arguments to such a head can be assigned a theta-role by a preposition while semantically participating in the argument structure of the head. See also Chap. 7 for more on the role of about in interrogative complementation.
- 4.
This section is taken from Roelofsen and Uegaki (2020).
- 5.
I would like to thank Prof Yukinori Takubo for pointing out to me that the particle na behaves in a way similar to daroo in relevant respects, modulo the surface linearization with respect to the question particle ka.
- 6.
The two particles differ in their surface linearization with respect to the question particle ka when they co-occur with an interrogative clause. As can be seen in (23), daroo precedes ka while na follows ka. Regardless of this surface linearization, I assume that the relevant particles embed an interrogative complement headed by the question particle at LF, as schematically represented below:
-
(i)
[ [ Ken sings ] Q ] na/daroo
In other words, the surface order of the question particle and na transparently represents the LF structure while there is a mismatch between the surface order and the LF in the case of daroo. I will follow Hara (2015, 2018) in assuming that a syntactic movement derives the surface ordering of daroo + ka. The analysis of na, on the other hand, will not rest on such a syntactic movement, given that the surface order transparently represents the structure in (i).
-
(i)
- 7.
If we were to capture the veridicality of care with respect to declarative complements, the entry would look like the following (Elliott et al., 2017).
-
(i)
= 
The second conjunct in the presupposition in (i) boils down to veridicality when Q is the denotation of a declarative complement and thus a singleton. On the other hand, the condition amounts to the existential presupposition with respect to interrogative complements.
-
(i)
- 8.
The definitions for E and INQ are repeated below.
-
(i)
Definition: the entertainment modality, E
-
(ii)
Definition: inquisitive states, INQFor each world w ∈ W and each agent a∈ D, \(\mathsf {INQ}^w_a\) (i.e., the inquisitive state of a in w)
-
is a downward-closed set of propositions that settle the questions that a has in w, and
-
satisfies the constraint: \(\bigcup \mathsf {INQ}_x^w = \text{DOX}_x^w\).
-
-
(i)
- 9.
Roberts (2018) proposes an analysis of mõtlema that aims at unifying the ‘entertain’ interpretation and the ‘imagine’ interpretation by making reference to what he calls the contemplation state of the subject. Although exploring the possibility of such a uniform account of mõtlema is by itself an interesting endeavor, I will not engage with this possibility. This is so because the theoretically more conservative analysis in (29), which stays close to Roberts’s (2018) empirical description, is sufficient for my purposes, i.e., to provide an analysis of mõtlema that accounts for its lack of Q-to-P entailment.
- 10.
This said, \({\ulcorner }\)Q-daroo \({\urcorner }\) may pragmatically implicate ignorance as a result of competition with \({\ulcorner }\)p-daroo \({\urcorner }\), where p is a specific answer of Q, as suggested by Uegaki and Roelofsen (2018).
= 
References
Belnap, N. (1982). Questions and answers in Montague grammar. In S. Peters & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Elliott, P. D., Klinedinst, N., Sudo, Y., & Uegaki, W. (2017). Predicates of relevance and theories of question embedding. Journal of Semantics, 34(3), 547–554.
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Hara, Y. (2015). Darou ka: An interplay of bias, sentence types, and prosody. Ms., City University of Hong Kong. Retrived from http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/TA0MmVkM/
Hara, Y. (2018). Daroo as an entertain modal: An inquisitive approach. In The 25th Japanese/Korean linguistics (JK).
Karttunen, L. (1977). Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 1, 3–44.
Lahiri, U. (1991). Embedded interrogatives and predicates that embed them. Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lahiri, U. (2002). Questions and answers in embedded contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nathan, L. (2006). On the interpretation of concealed questions. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Roberts, T. (2018). Responsive predicates are question-embedding: Evidence from Estonian. In Sinn und bedeutung (vol. 22, pp. 271–288).
Roelofsen, F., & Uegaki, W. (2020). Searching for a universal constraint on the denotation of clause-embedding predicates. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (vol. 30, pp. 542–561).
Theiler, N., Roelofsen, F., & Aloni, M. (2018). A uniform semantics for declarative and interrogative complements. Journal of Semantics, 35(3), 409–466.
Uegaki, W., & Roelofsen, F. (2018). Do modals take propositions or sets of propositions? Evidence from Japanese darou. In Proceedings of SALT 28 (pp. 809–829).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Uegaki, W. (2022). Caring: Question Orientation in Responsive Predicates. In: Question-orientedness and the Semantics of Clausal Complementation. Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy, vol 106. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15940-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15940-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15939-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15940-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)